3 THE INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORT FORUM The International Transport Forum at the OECD is an intergovernmental organisation with 54 member countries. It acts as a strategic think-tank, with the objective of helping shape the transport policy agenda on a global level and ensuring that it contributes to economic growth, environmental protection, social inclusion and the preservation of human life and well-being. The International Transport Forum organises an annual summit of Ministers along with leading representatives from industry, civil society and academia. The International Transport Forum was created under a Declaration issued by the Council of Ministers of the ECMT (European Conference of Ministers of Transport) at its Ministerial Session in May 2006 under the legal authority of the Protocol of the ECMT, signed in Brussels on 17 October 1953, and legal instruments of the OECD. The Members of the Forum are: Albania, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Belgium, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Bulgaria, Canada, Chile, People s Republic of China, Croatia, Czech Republic, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia, Georgia, Germany, Greece, Hungary, Iceland, India, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Korea, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Malta, Mexico, Republic of Moldova, Montenegro, Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russian Federation, Serbia, Slovak Republic, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Turkey, Ukraine, United Kingdom and United States. The International Transport Forum s Research Centre gathers statistics and conducts co-operative research programmes addressing all modes of transport. Its findings are widely disseminated and support policymaking in Member countries as well as contributing to the annual summit. Discussion Papers The International Transport Forum s Discussion Paper Series makes economic research, commissioned or carried out at its Research Centre, available to researchers and practitioners. The aim is to contribute to the understanding of the transport sector and to provide inputs to transport policy design. ITF Discussion Papers should not be reported as representing the official views of the ITF or of its member countries. The opinions expressed and arguments employed are those of the authors. Discussion Papers describe preliminary results or research in progress by the author(s) and are published to stimulate discussion on a broad range of issues on which the ITF works. Comments on Discussion Papers are welcomed, and may be sent to: International Transport Forum/OECD, 2 rue André-Pascal, Paris Cedex 16, France. For further information on the Discussion Papers and other JTRC activities, please The Discussion Papers can be downloaded from: The International Transport Forum s website is at: This document and any map included herein are without prejudice to the status of or sovereignty over any territory, to the delimitation of international frontiers and boundaries and to the name of any territory, city or area.

5 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Shipping emissions in ports are substantial, accounting for 18 million tonnes of CO 2 emissions, 0.4 million tonnes of NO x, 0.2 million of SO x and 0.03 million tonnes of PM 10 in Around 85% of emissions come from containerships and tankers. Containerships have short port stays, but high emissions during these stays. Most of CO 2 emissions in ports from shipping are in Asia and Europe (58%), but this share is low compared to their share of port calls (70%). European ports have much less emissions of SO x (5%) and PM (7%) than their share of port calls (22%), which can be explained by the EU regulation to use low sulphur fuels at berth. The ports with the largest absolute emission levels due to shipping are Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Tianjin (China) and Port Klang (Malaysia). The distribution of shipping emissions in ports is skewed: the ten ports with largest emissions represent 19% of total CO 2 emissions in ports and 22% of SO x emissions. The port with the lowest relative CO 2 emissions (emissions per ship call) is Kitakyushu (Japan); the port of Kyllini (Greece) has the lowest SO x emissions. Other ports with low relative emissions come from Japan, Greece, UK, US and Sweden. Shipping emissions have considerable external costs in ports: almost EUR 12 billion per year in the 50 largest ports in the OECD for NO x, SO x and PM emissions, the emissions most directly relevant to local populations. Approximately 230 million people are directly exposed to the emissions in the top 100 world ports in terms of shipping emissions. Most shipping emissions in ports (CH 4, CO, CO 2 and NO x ) are estimated to grow fourfold up to This would bring CO 2 -emissions from ships in ports to approximately 70 million tonnes in 2050 and NO x -emissions up to 1.3 million tonnes. Asia and Africa will see the sharpest increases in emissions, due to strong port traffic growth and limited mitigation measures. In order to reduce these projected emissions, strong policy responses will be needed. This could take the form of global regulation such as more stringent rules on sulphur content of ship fuel (such as the 0.5% sulphur cap already agreed by the IMO), or more emission control areas than the four that are currently in place (which would extend the 0.1% sulphur requirements to more areas). In addition, shipping could be included in market-based mechanisms for climate change mitigation. A lot could also be gained by policy initiatives of ports themselves. Various ports have developed infrastructure, regulation and incentives that mitigate shipping emissions in ports. These instruments would need wider application in order for ship emissions in ports to be significantly reduced. 4 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

6 1. INTRODUCTION Shipping could in one way - be considered a relatively clean transport mode. This is particularly the case if one takes the angle of emissions per tonne-kilometre. Typical ranges of CO 2 efficiencies of ships are between 0 and 60 grams per tonne-kilometre, this range is for rail transport and for road transport (IMO 2009). There is considerable variety between vessel types and CO2 efficiency generally increases with vessel size; e.g. CO 2 emissions per tonne-km (in grams per year) for a container feeder ship (with capacity up to 500 TEU) were 31.6, three times higher than the emissions for Post Panamax container ships, with a capacity larger than 4,400 TEU (Psaraftis and Kontovas, 2008). This difference is even larger for dry bulk ships, with a difference of more than a factor 10 between the smallest vessels (up to 5000 dwt) and capesize vessels (> 120,000 dwt). At the same time, the air emissions from shipping are considerable. Depending on the methodology, different studies have estimated CO 2 emissions from shipping to be around 2-3% of total global emissions and shares that are much higher for some of the non-ghg emissions: in the range of 5-10% for SO x emissions and 17-31% for NO x emissions (Table 1). A solid body of research exist on shipping emissions in particular parts of the world (e.g. Europe) that confirm the reliability of these shares of shipping emissions (e.g. Cofala et al. 2007). In comparison with other transport modes, shipping emissions are also substantial. Whereas CO 2 emissions of shipping might be approximately a fifth of those of road transport, NO x and PM emissions are almost on a par, and SO x emissions of shipping are substantially higher than those of road transport by a factor of 1.6 to 2.7 (ICCT, 2007). According to Eyring et al. (2003) international shipping produces about 9.2 more NOx emissions than aviation, approximately 80 times more SO x emissions and around 1200 times more particulate matter than aviation, due to the high sulphur content in ship fuel. These emissions have increased at a large pace over the last decades and are expected to increase in the future. Eyring et al. (2003) show that main shipping emissions (CO 2, SO x, NO x and PM) grew with a factor of approximately 4 over the period , faster than the increase of the number of ships over that period, which tripled. Shipping emissions are projected to increase over the coming decades. E.g. the IMO assumed in 2014 that shipping-related carbon dioxide emissions would increase with a factor two to three up till 2050 (IMO, 2014). Although most of these emissions take place at sea, the most directly noticeable part of shipping emissions takes place in port areas and port-cities. It is here that shipping emissions have the most direct health impacts. NO 2 and CO-emissions in ports have been linked to bronchitic symptoms, whereas exposure to SO 2 -emissions is associated with respiratory issues and premature births. Data from the Los Angeles County Health Survey reveal that Long Beach communities in close proximity to the Port of Los Angeles experience higher rates (2.9 percentage points on average) of asthma, coronary heart disease and depression, compared to other communities in Los Angeles (Human Impact Partners, 2010). Additionally, the California Air Resources Board attributed Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

7 premature deaths per year to ports and the shipment of goods (Sharma, 2006). On a global scale, calculations suggest that shipping-related PM emissions are responsible for approximately 60,000 cardiopulmonary and lung cancer deaths annually, with most deaths occurring near coastlines in Europe, East Asia and South Asia (Corbett, 2007). Table 1. Overview of studies on global shipping emissions CO 2 SO x NO x PM 10 Estimation (mln tonnes) Year Share of total emissions Source % IMO % IMO Psaraftis & Kontovas Paxian et al % Eyring et al % Corbett & Koehler % Endresen et al % IMO IMO IMO % ICCT % Eyring et al % Corbett & Koehler % Endresen et al Cofala et al IMO IMO % ICCT Cofala et al % Eyring et al % Corbett & Koehler % Endresen et al IMO IMO Cofala et al Eyring et al Corbett & Koehler Endresen et al Source: own data collection However, relatively little is known about ship emissions in ports. The literature review below (section 2) identifies the main studies in this respect, which in most cases are case studies of one port. What is missing is a comprehensive overview of shipping emissions in ports, using a uniform definition and methodology, so that emissions in different ports can be compared with each other. This paper wants to fill this gap, by providing this comprehensive overview of shipping emissions in ports. It considers the following air emissions: CH 4, CO, CO 2, NO x, PM 10, PM 2,5 and SO x. The calculation of shipping emissions in ports makes use of a database of Lloyd s Marine Intelligence Unit on vessel movements in 2011, containing information on turnaround times of ships in ports across the world and ship characteristics, which allows for a bottom-up estimation of ship emissions during port calls. In these calculations, various policy measures implemented in ports to mitigate air emissions have been taken into account, such as the EU regulation to use low sulphur fuel at berth, shore power and various fuel switch programmes. The analysis has been made for different ship types, including 6 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

8 containerships, bulk carriers, tankers and Roll on/roll off- (Ro/Ro-) ships, carrying a variety of cargo categories. This calculation has been aggregated into emissions per port and per country in Projections have been made towards 2050, based on the ITF Freight projection model. These projections have been made per country. Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

11 Victoria, BC (Canada) Air quality measurement Cruise ships Poplawski et al Göteborg (Sweden) Air quality measurement Ships entering the inner part of port Isakson et al Copenhagen (Denmark) Air quality measurement Vessels in ports Saxe & Larsen 2004 Mumbai (India) Activity based OGVs in port area Joseph et al Aberdeen (UK) Air quality survey Ships and trucks in the port area Marr et al main Spanish ports Activity based Vessels manoeuvring and hotelling Castells Sanabra et al Rotterdam (Netherlands) Fuel consumption Ships at berth Hulskotte & Denier van der Gon, 2010 Source: Own data collection. The largest part of emissions in ports is generally from shipping activity; this can be concluded from this collection of studies on emissions in ports. Between 70% to 100% of emissions in ports in developed countries can be attributed to shipping; trucks and locomotives represent up one fifth, whereas emissions from equipment rarely exceed 15%. The picture is different for ports in developing countries where regulations on truck fuels are less strict and where a larger share of the total emssions in ports is taken up by trucks and locomotives. E.g. in the port of Mumbai, the NO x emissions from port trucks are almost 20% higher than those from ships; and PM 10 emissions from trucks are 26 times higher than from ships (Joseph et al. 2009). Shipping emissions in ports can represent a substantial share of total emissions in the port-city. Much depends on the size of the port, the size of the city and the character of the city, such as industrialisation rate. In some large port-cities, such as Hong Kong and Los Angeles/Long Beach, the share of SO 2 emissions can reach half of the total emissions in the city; for NO x and particulate matter emission levels that represent up to a fifth of total urban emission are not rare (Table 4). Table 4. Shipping emissions as share of total emissions in port-city Port SO 2 PM NO x Source Hong Kong 54% - 33% Civic Exchange 2009 Shanghai 7% - 10% Hong et al Los Angeles/Long Beach 45% - 9% Starcrest 2011 Rotterdam % 13-25% Merk 2013 Kaohsiung 4-10% - - Liu et al Hong Kong 11% 16% 17% Yau et al Taranto 7% % Gariazzo et al 2007 Izmir 10% 1% 8% Saraçoglu et al Venice - 1-8% - Contini et al Brindisi - 1% 8% Di Sabatino et al Los Angeles/Long Beach - 1-9% - Agrawal et al Melila - 2-4% - Viana et al Algeciras - 3-7% - Pandolfi et al Source: Own data collection. The approach in this paper is to provide a comparative overview of shipping emissions in ports. This makes it possible to compare the different emissions in port-cities and go beyond the incidental case studies whose values are difficult to compare to each other. At the same time, it also refines the literature on global shipping emissions in ports by using a more precise dataset on time spent in ports. 10 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

12 3. METHODOLOGY Several methodologies have been used to estimate emissions from shipping, which can basically be summarized in four models, depending on whether emission evaluation is top-down or bottom up, and whether the geographical characterisation of emissions is top-down or bottom-up (Miola and Ciuffo, 2011): In a full top-down approach, total emissions are calculated without considering the vessel characteristics and are after the calculation geographically located and assigned to the different ships. The first studies on ship emissions took this approach and used international marine fuel usage statistics to estimate ship emissions, but results from this approach were later considered to be unreliable. In the second approach, a full bottom up approach, air pollutants emitted by a ship in a specific position are calculated; aggregating these estimates over time and over the fleet gives an estimation of the total emissions. This approach can be considered much more reliable, but the data required for such an approach have only recently come available, so for the moment there is a limited amount of studies using this approach. As a result, a considerable amount of studies take approaches that are more hybrid. There is a model that is bottom up in the evaluations of total emissions and top down in their geographical characterisation. In this approach, the aggregation of the emissions produced by all the ships gives an estimate of the total emissions; the emissions are then geographically characterised based on assumptions, e.g. ship activities or single geographic cells. A fairly recent approach is to use Automatic Identification System (AIS) data to refine the maritime data. The fourth approach is top down in the evaluation of total emissions plus bottom up in the geographic characterisation. In this approach the global activity carried out within a single maritime route or a single geographic cell is evaluated. Emissions from individual cells are aggregated to calculate total emissions and assumptions are made in order to assign total emissions to the different ships. Our approach here is to use a bottom up-approach with respect to both ship characteristics (horsepower of the engines) and geographical characterisation, that is: the actual time spent in ports (in hours and minutes) by vessels. Following Joseph et al. (2009), the following equation is used to estimate shipping-related emissions at ports: E = P*LF*EF*T Where: E emissions in units of pollutant P maximum power output of auxiliary engine in kw LF load factor for auxiliary engines, as a fraction of maximum installed power capacity EF emission factor (pollutant specific) in mass emitted per work output of the auxiliary engine in manoeuvring and hotelling mode, g/kwh and T time in manoeuvring and hotelling mode in hours Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

13 The principle behind this equation is to apply emission factors to activity rates, as generally the case when estimating emissions. The activity rate of the individual vessels in our database is estimated using rules of thumb indicated and explained below. Ships use auxiliary power whilst being at berth. The maximum power of auxiliary engines in a vessel is estimated based on auxiliary engine power ratios and an estimation of a vessel s main engine horsepower as a function of dead weight tonnage. We have made calculations for four different ship categories: Container ships (fully cellular containerships). Tankers (including crude oil tankers, chemical tankers, combined tankers and product tankers). Bulk carriers. Roll on/roll off- (Ro/Ro)-ships. These ship types include the large majority of commercial vessels used to transport freight. We did not include general cargo ships. We only concentrate on cargo, so did not include passenger ships either. The auxiliary to main engine power ratio is assumed to be: for container vessels; for tankers; for bulk carriers; for Ro/Ro-ships. The estimation of main engine horsepower for different vessels is assumed to follow the equations based on EPA (2000): (0.80*dwt -/ ) for container vessels; (0.1083*dwt ) for tankers; (0.0985*dwt ) for bulk carriers; (0.288*dwt ) for Ro/Ro-ships. The total deadweight tonnage of each vessel in the database is known. The load factor for auxiliary engines in manoeuvring and hotelling modes is based on Starcrest (2004) and Starcrest (2007) and considered to be: 18% for container vessels; 26% for tankers; 10% for bulk carriers; 26% for RoRo-ships 12 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

14 The emission factors for auxiliary engines during transit, manoeuvring and hotelling1 depend on the type of fuel used (CARB, 2008): Table 5. Auxiliary Engine Emission Factors (g/kw-hr) Fuel CH 4 CO CO 2 NO x PM 10 PM 2,5 SO x Marine Distillate (0.1% S) Marine Distillate (0.5% S) Heavy Fuel Oil Source: California Air Resources Board (2008) The values that have been calculated in this way have been corrected for the effects of policies to mitigate air emissions of shipping in ports, in particular: i) shore power facilities in ports; ii) emission control areas (ECAs) and iii) other fuel switch programmes (either mandatory or voluntary). i) Shore power facilities Shore power facilities in ports allow ships to shut off their auxiliary engine and use the power of the grid in the port. Ships that use shore power minimize their emissions and are considered to be negligible during their stay in the port. We have collected information on the availability of shore power facilities for different ship types in world ports. On the basis of this dataset, we have corrected our calculations for the different ship categories in these ports: containerships, Ro/Ro-ships, tankers and bulk carriers. Whereas shore power facilities are relatively frequently available in container terminals and Ro/Ro-terminals, this is not the case for tankers and bulk carriers. The port of Long Beach is the only port that provides shore power facilities for tankers. 2 The shore power facilities are not available in all of the container- and Ro/Ro-terminals in the ports below, so the correction of the calculated emission should only apply for the traffic share that these terminals in the total container and Ro/Ro-traffic of the port. Moreover, not all ships are equipped to be connected to shore power facilities, so we have made corrections based on assumptions on how often these facilities are actually used. The estimations of traffic shares of the terminals and of assumed actual use of the shore power facilities are coming from the respective port authorities that we have asked to provide us with this information. 1 The character of the dataset is such that for the vast majority of ports the time in port denotes the arrival at or departure from the port jurisdiction. For the top 10 ports in terms of port calls there is a complexity to size and variation vessels using that port, so the times denote arrival at, or sailing from berth. For these largest ports an estimation has been made for the emissions from manoeuvring, based on a literature study on the shares of hotelling and manoeuvring in the shipping emission in ports. In most studies it is observed that hotelling presents 70-80% of the ship emissions in the largest world ports such as Hong Kong, Shanghai and Kaohsiung (Song, 2014; Yau et al. 2012; Liu et al. 2014). For the ten ports with the largest number of calls it is thus assumed that manoeuvring emissions represent 25% of the gross emissions from hotelling (Gross emissions meaning here emissions without taking into account shore power facilities). 2 Shore power facilities for other ship categories such as cruise ships, ferries and river ships are not included in this table Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

15 Table 6. Shore power facilities in ports in 2011 Port Country Ship type Traffic share of terminal(s) with shore power Frequency of use shore power facilities Antwerp Belgium Containers n.a. 0% Prince Rupert Canada Containers - (25%) Shanghai China Containers - (25%) Shekou China Containers - (25%) Long Beach USA Containers 100% 50% Los Angeles USA Containers - (25%) Oakland USA Containers 100% 38% Zeebrugge Belgium RoRo 28% 45% Luebeck Germany RoRo n.a. 11% Kemi Finland RoRo 100% 55% Osaka Japan RoRo - (25%) Gothenburg Sweden RoRo 100% 40% Trelleborg Sweden RoRo 34% 0% Tacoma USA RoRo 8% 100% Long Beach RoRo Tankers - 0% Source: own data collection based on information provided by the port authorities Note: The Port of Long Beach does not track data on shore power visits, but under the shore power regulation, fleets must plug in 50% of their visits. The estimation of usage of container terminals at the port of Oakland are based on statistics from January-July The percentages between brackets are assumptions, as the ports in question never responded to our inquiry. ii) Emission control areas The picture is further complicated by emission control areas (ECAs). These ECAs are sea areas in which stricter controls are established to minimize airborne emissions from ships as defined by Annex VI of the 1997 MARPOL Protocol which came into effect in May This Annex VI contains provisions for emission and fuel quality requirements regarding SO x, PM and NO x, a global requirement and more stringent controls in the emission control areas. There are currently four ECAs: one for the Baltic Sea, for the North Sea, the North American ECA covering most of the US and Canadian coast and the US Caribbean ECA, including Puerto Rico and the US Virgin Islands. In 2011, the year of the dataset on which the analysis is based, only the Baltic Sea ECA and the North Sea ECA were in effect (Table 7); the other two ECAs have by now entered into force which will be of relevance for the projections of shipping emissions in ports. The SO x and particulate matter emissions allowed inside and outside ECAs are indicated in Table 8. Although there is speculation about new ECA s, we have not included these in our projections. From 1 st January 2016 more stringent NO x regulations will be in force in the North American and US Caribbean ECAs: all new-built vessels from that date operating in these ECAs should have Tier III engines, which have much lower maximum NO x emissions (3.4 g/kwh at lowest speed). In our long-term projections, we have taken this into account, assuming that the whole fleet in these ECAs will have been renewed by 2050, so that the relevant NO x emission factor for these ports in 2050 is 3.4 g/kwh in hotelling mode. 3 A more stringent Annex VI was enforced with significantly tightened emission limits 14 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

16 Table 7. Emission control areas in force Emission control area Limited compounds Adopted In effect from Baltic Sea SO x 26/09/ /05/2006 North Sea SO x 22/07/ /11/2007 North American SO x, NO x, PM 26/03/ /08/2012 US Caribbean Sea SO x, NO x, PM 26/07/ /01/2014 Source: Table 8. Allowed sulphur emissions inside and outside ECAs Outside an ECA Inside an ECA 4.50% prior to 1 st January % prior to 1 st July % between 1 st January 2012 and % between 1 st July 2010 and 1 st January % from 1 st January % from 1 st January 2015 Source: iii) Other fuel switch programmes An additional third element to take into account is the existence of other mandatory or voluntary fuel switch programmes. An important regulation in that respect is the EU Sulphur Directive that prescribes that ships at berth in EU ports need to use fuels with a maximum of 0.1% sulphur content, which is in place since January We take this into account in our analysis by applying the emission factors related to Marine Distillate 0.1% S for all EU ports in our analysis, assuming that the regulation is fully applied. Another piece of regulation covers the State of California. Its legislation requires the use of low sulphur fuel within 24 nautical miles of the California coast; the rules applied in 2011 stipulated the use of Marine gas oil (DMA) at or below 1.5% sulphur, or Marine diesel oil (DMB) at or below 0.5% sulphur (CARB, 2011). The maximum allowed sulphur content has since been reduced to 0.1%. Voluntary fuel switch programmes are applied in various ports and provide incentives to shipping lines to use low sulphur fuel (Table 9). These incentives are either in the form of compensations to shipping lines for the additional fuel costs due to their fuel switches, or lower port dues and tariffs. Both the programmes in Seattle and Houston give reimbursements to shipping lines based on the volume of low-sulphur fuel burned during each port call. In contrast, the Green Port Programme in Singapore gives a 15% reduction of port dues for vessels that switch to clean fuel (or use approved scrubbers or other abatement measures). These programmes usually take the form of collaboration between the port administration and one or more shipping lines. E.g. the programme in Houston is exclusively with the shipping line CMA*CGM, whereas the Fair Winds Charter in Hong Kong was with the main 17 shipping lines calling the port. A brief questionnaire was sent to the relevant port authorities; the answers to this questionnaire were used to identify the extent of coverage of these programmes (the share of ships of total ships that actually used low-sulphur fuel when they were in the port). These data were taken into account when calculating the shipping emissions in these ports. Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

17 Table 9. Voluntary Fuel switch programmes in ports in 2011 Port Country Programme Max. Coverage sulphur level: Hong Kong China Fair Winds Charter 0.5% 19% Seattle US ABC Fuels 0.5% 73% 4 Vancouver Canada EcoAction Program 0.5% 18% 5 Singapore Singapore Green Port Program 1% 0.4% New York/New Jersey US OGV Low sulphur program 0.2% (10%) Houston US DERA Fuel Switch Program 0.2% (10%) Source: own data collection based on information provided by the port authorities. Numbers for Singapore cover The percentages between brackets are assumptions, as the ports in question never responded to our inquiry. Other green port policies have not been taken into account, because they do not have an impact on air emissions in the port. E.g. there was no need to correct for the Vessel Reduction Programme operational in the Port of Long Beach; even if reduced speed decreases air emissions within the 20 nautical miles where the programme applies, it is not relevant to the air emissions of ships at berth. There was no need either to correct for differentiated port dues based on schemes such as the environmental ship index (ESI), that scores ships according to their environmental performance. The first reason is that almost all ports that participated in the programme in 2011 were European ports (where the EU Sulphur directorate applied); the second reason is that the share of ships with an ESI certification is marginal in comparison with the global ship fleet. 4. DATASET The data used are vessel movements of ships world-wide, as collected by Lloyd s Maritime Intelligence Unit (LMIU) The dataset includes data per ship, their characteristics, their arrival and departure time in a port, and their next port of call. On the basis of these raw data, we constructed a database with ship turnaround time per ship per port, which can be aggregated in ship turnaround times per port. The main ship categories included in the database are: container ships, Ro/Ro-ships, tankers and bulk carriers. The database covers exclusively ocean-going vessels, so river barges, which make up a significant part of ship calls in some ports, are excluded from this analysis. The dataset has a very high coverage of the world fleet: close to all vessels in the world are covered by the Lloyd s database. For budgetary reasons we used a database that covers only May This month is considered to be a representative month by Lloyd s Maritime Intelligence Unit. Our own observations confirm this. We constructed a database with monthly port volumes of a 4 This percentage represents the share of total vessels in 2011 that used distillate fuels with a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% for all hotelling auxiliary engine operations. 5 This percentage represents the share of total vessels in 2011 that used distillate fuels with a maximum sulphur content of 0.5% for all hotelling auxiliary engine operations 16 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

18 selection of world ports, which shows that the month of May is in most ports and in most years a month that is has neither consistently lower nor higher volumes than the other months. Of the total port calls of vessels (larger than 100 gt) a small number of observations were excluded because of missing arrival and departure data and some observations are excluded because they were considered to be extreme values that would skew the results; these are the vessel calls with a stay in one port of more than 10 days. What resulted was a database with port calls (in 874 ports), of which 93% have precise arrival and departure time in hours and minutes. For a large majority of ship calls, the precise turnaround time in the port is known. In some cases less precise measurements (ship turnaround time in days, not in hours and minutes) was the only available information. For these missing values, it is assumed that the port time for vessels arriving and leaving the same day is 12 hours, leaving the next day is equivalent to 36 hours, with a port stay of two days equivalent to 50 hours etc. This was necessary for some ports with only a very limited set of precise time observations was available, so taking exclusively these and extrapolate these would risk to be inaccurate. 5. RESULTS 5.1 Shipping emissions in ports in 2011 Shipping emissions in ports are substantial and accounted for 18 million tonnes of CO 2 emissions, 0.4 million tonnes of NO X emissions, 0.2 million of SO x emissions and 0.03 million tonnes of PM 10 -emisions in 2011, as well as various other emissions (Table 1). These shipping emissions in ports present on average approximately 2% of the total shipping emissions, for the different emission types, as calculated in various studies referenced in the Literature Review (section 2). This share is lower than the one found by Dalsøren et al. (2008) who estimated that emissions due to ships activities around or in ports account for five per cent of total emissions from shipping. This might be explained by the fact that our study does not take shipping emissions from ships other than oceangoing vessels into account, such as inland barges. Table 10. Estimated shipping emissions in ports (2011) Shipping emissions in ports (mln tonnes) CO NO x 0.4 SO x 0.2 PM PM 2, CO 0.03 CH Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

19 Around 85% of these emissions come from containerships and tankers. This is partly explained by their dominant presence in terms of port calls, around three quarters of all calls. Both containerships and tankers have more emissions than could be expected based on the number of port calls. For tankers this can be explained by their relatively long turnaround time in ports. However, this is not the case for containerships: their time in port is approximately 27% of the port time of vessels, whereas these represent 40% of the calls. So containerships have relatively short stays in ports, but have relatively high emissions during these stays. The inverse is the case for bulk carriers: they have long turnaround times, but have relatively fewer emissions during their stays in ports. Also Roll-on/roll-off (Ro/Ro) -ships are relatively clean: representing 8% of port calls and 5% of port time, they only represent 2% of the total shipping emissions in ports (Figure 1). Figure 1. Ship types and their shares in emissions, port calls and port time (2011) Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit Most of the shipping emissions in ports are concentrated in Asia and Europe, e.g. 58% of the CO2-emissions. This is logical if one considers that most of world s port activity is taking place there: Asia and Europe represent 70% of total port calls. Both Asia and Europe have relatively time efficient ports, considering that their calculated time in a port is only 62%, considerably less than their share of port calls. Moreover, European ports have much less emissions of SOx (5% of world total), PM10 (7%) and PM2,5 (8%) than their share of port calls (22%) would suggest, which can be explained by the EU regulation to use low sulphur fuels at berth. Also its share of CO2-emissions (19%) is relatively low, due to port air emissions policies, such as shore power facilities and incentives for fuel switching. Ports with high emissions relative to their port traffic can be found in Africa, the Middle East, Latin America, and to a slightly lesser extent in North America (Figure 2). 18 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

20 Figure 2. Shipping emissions, port calls and port time per continent (2011) Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit The ports with the largest absolute emission levels due to shipping are Singapore, Hong Kong (China), Tianjin (China) and Port Klang (Malaysia). In all emission categories the port of Singapore shows highest emission levels, for the other ports their position is different with respect to the different emission categories. The top 10 port rankings for CO2 emissions are similar to those of NOx; and the rankings of SOx and PM are similar as well. This correlation also applies to the whole dataset: there is complete correlation (R2 is 1) between CO2 and NOx shipping emissions per ports, as well as for PM and SOx (R2 of 0.9 for the other relationships). The emission levels per port have been compared with the corrected emissions as calculated in the various studies referenced in the literature review (section); depending on the emission types, the results show high to very high correlations6. The list of ports with largest emissions is not very surprising: most of these ports belong to the largest ports in the world with the highest shipping activity. The difference between the rankings with respect to CO2 emissions and SOx emissions could be explained by policy, in particular the EU directive on low sulphur fuel. The ten ports with largest emissions represent almost a fifth of the total shipping emissions in ports: 19% for CO2 emissions and 22% for SOx emissions. This illustrates the highly skewed nature of shipping emissions in ports. In line with this: the 50 ports with largest emissions have 37% of the CO2 and 44% of the total SOx emissions related to shipping. 6 R 2 scores of 0.5 up to 0.9 depending on the emission types. Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

21 Table 11. Ports with the largest absolute emissions Top 10 ports (CO 2 Share of Top 10 ports (SO x Share of emissions) total emissions) total 1. Singapore 5.9% 1. Singapore 6.5% 2. Hong Kong 2.2% 2. Hong Kong 2.3% 3. Rotterdam 2.0% 3. Port Klang 2.2% 4. Port Klang 1.9% 4. Tianjin 2.1% 5. Tianjin 1.8% 5. Shanghai 2.0% 6. Shanghai 1.7% 6. Fujairah 2.0% 7. Fujairah 1.7% 7. Busan 1.7% 8. Busan 1.4% 8. Kaohsiung 1.6% 9. Kaohsiung 1.4% 9. Ulsan 1.0% 10. Antwerp 1.2% 10. Beilun 0.9% Total Top % Total Top % Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit The ports with the lowest relative emissions come from Japan, Greece, UK, US and Sweden. These are the shipping emissions per ship call in each port. The port with the lowest relative CO2 emissions is Kitakyushu (Japan); the port of Kyllini (Greece) has the lowest SOx emissions. As with the absolute rankings, the rankings with respect to CO2 and NOx are similar, as well as the ones for PM and SOx. The ranking is dominated by ports specialised in Ro/Ro-traffic, with Ro/Ro-vessels having relatively low emission levels compared to other ship types. The difference between the rankings with respect to CO2 emissions and SOx emissions could be explained by the EU directive on low sulphur fuel at berth. Table 12. Ports with the lowest relative emissions Ports with lowest CO 2 Country Port with lowest SO x Country emissions per ship call emissions per ship call 1. Kitakyushu Japan 1. Kyllini Greece 2. Imabari Japan 2. Guernsey United Kingdom 3. Kyllini Greece 3. Sundsvall Sweden 4. Guernsey United Kingdom 4. Troon United Kingdom 5. Annapolis USA 5. Trelleborg Sweden 6. Grand Cayman Cayman Islands 6. Heysham United Kingdom 7. Sundsvall Sweden 7. Marstal Denmark 8. Troon United Kingdom 8. Jersey United Kingdom 9. Trelleborg Sweden 9. Gourock United Kingdom 10. Heysham United Kingdom 10. Naxos Greece Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit The absolute levels of shipping emissions in ports can to a large extent be explained by port activity: the ports with more ship calls generally have higher levels of shipping emissions. This is particularly the case for CO2 (Figure 3) and NOx, with a correlation R2 of 0.86 for both emissions. This correlation is lower for SOx emissions (Figure 4); policies aimed at reducing these emissions in the port have to some extent managed to decouple emissions from port activity. This can also be illustrated by the differences in size distribution of the different shipping emissions: whereas CO2 emissions to some 20 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

24 SO x emissions (tonnes per year) SHIPPING EMISSIONS IN PORTS Figure 6. Size distribution of SOx emissions in 100 most active ports 1.8E E E E+10 1E+10 8E+09 6E+09 4E+09 2E+09 0 R² = Port rank Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit Shipping emissions in ports have large impacts on the population of their cities: approximately 230 million people are directly exposed to the emissions in the top 100 world ports in terms of shipping emissions. Around 40 million people are directly exposed to the ten ports with the largest SOx emissions, which concentrate 22% of the total shipping-related SOx emissions in ports. Shipping emissions have considerable external costs in ports: almost EUR 12 billion per year in the 50 largest ports in the OECD for NOx, SOx and PM emissions (Figure 7), based on conservative assumptions. Our calculations follow the approaches in various studies to calculate the external costs of shipping emissions in specific port-cities (McArthur and Osland, 2013; Castells Sanabra et al. 2014). In these studies, like in our calculation, local impact calculation factors are used for a standard city with a population of 100,000 people that are scaled linearly to the respective populations, in our case to the cities or towns with the 50 largest OECD ports. The impact calculation factors used are EUR 33,000 of external costs per ton of PM2,5 emitted, EUR 6,000 for SO2 and EUR 4,200 for NOx, based on Holland and Watkiss (2002). Our calculations are conservative, because these calculation factors are on the lower bound of the factors applied in other studies, such as Holland et al Moreover, in our calculations the external costs were not adjusted for inflation. Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

25 Figure 7. External costs of shipping emissions in top 50 OECD ports 5 External costs in 2011 (billion euros) Nox SOx PM Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit 5.2 Estimated shipping emissions in ports in 2050 Most shipping emissions in ports will grow fourfold up to This is the case for CH 4, CO, CO 2 and NO x -emissions. This would bring CO 2 -emissions from ships in ports to approximately 70 million tonnes in 2050 and NO x -emissions up to 1.3 million tonnes. The level of PM 10 and PM 2,5 -emissions from ships in ports remains at the level of 2011 emissions and SO x emissions decline slightly compared to the 2011 level (Figure 8). The growth in most shipping emissions is driven by growing demand for certain commodities and goods fuelled by growth of population, economy and trade. The projections are based on the ITF freight model that predicts the flows of 18 different cargo types between 226 places in 84 different countries. These growth rates for cargo types have been translated into growth projections of port calls of the corresponding ship types in each country. In this calculation we assume that ship turnaround times remain at a similar level and that all international obligations that have an impact on ship emissions will be implemented in the timelines currently foreseen, e.g. the reduction of the maximum allowed sulphur content in fuels to 0.5% by 2020, and to 0.1% by 2015 in emission control areas. 24 Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF 2014

26 Figure 8. Increase in shipping emissions in ports % 400% 350% 300% 250% 200% 150% % 50% 0% CH4 CO CO2 Nox PM10 PM2,5 Sox Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit Asia and Africa will be subject the sharpest increases in emissions, due to their projected strong port traffic growth to 2050 and the lack of regional mitigation measures (such as ECAs). Asian port traffic is projected to reach half of the global total in 2050, which corresponds to the share of projected shipping emissions in Asian ports. European and North American ports show relative declines of emissions, due to relatively slower traffic growth and to stricter regulatory measures, such as emission control areas. For example, due to the emission control areas and the 0.1% maximally allowed sulphur content in these areas from 2015, SO x -emissions in European and North European ports are projected to be 5% of the total SO x -emissions in ports, whereas their total port traffic would account for 24% in 2050 (Figure 9). Figure 9. Shares of emissions and port calls, 2011 and % 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% CO2 (2011) CO2 (2050) Sox (2011) Sox (2050) Port calls (2011) Port calls (2050) Oceania North America Middle East Latin America Europe Asia Africa Source: Author s calculations and elaborations, based on data from Lloyds Marine Intelligence Unit Olaf Merk Discussion Paper OECD/ITF

Smart Grids and Electric Vehicles: Made for Each Other? 02 Discussion Paper 2012 02 Trevor MORGAN Menecon Consulting, United Kingdom This document was produced as a Background Paper for the 2012 Summit

Employment Policy Department EMPLOYMENT Working Paper No. 162 2014 At work but earning less: Trends in decent pay and minimum wages for young people Damian Grimshaw Employment and Labour Market Policies

WORLD ENERGY OUTLOOK 2 0 1 1 ENERGY FOR ALL Financing access for the poor Special early excerpt of the World Energy Outlook 2011 First presented at the Energy For All Conference in Oslo, Norway in October

EEA Technical report No 9/2013 Reducing air pollution from electricity-generating large combustion plants in the European Union An assessment of potential emission reductions of NO X, SO 2 and dust ISSN

Programme for International Student Assessment Are Students Ready for a Technology-Rich World? What PISA Studies Tell Us OECD ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC

Study on the Need for Modernization of Large Combustion Plants in the Energy Community Enviroment South East European Consultants, Ltd. November 2013 www.energy-community.org This report was financed by

EEA Technical report No 21/2014 Energy support measures and their impact on innovation in the renewable energy sector in Europe ISSN 1725-2237 EEA Technical report No 21/2014 Energy support measures and

CHAPITRE Phasing Lead out of Gasoline : An Examination of Policy Approaches in Different Countries ORGANISATION FOR ECONOMIC CO-OPERATION AND DEVELOPMENT Environment Directorate Environmental Health and

ALL ISLAND GRID STUDY WORK STREAM 4 ANALYSIS OF IMPACTS AND BENEFITS January 2008 Executive Summary The All Island Grid Study is the first comprehensive assessment of the ability of the electrical power

E c o n o m i c & S o c i a l A f f a i r s WORLD POPULATION TO 2300 United Nations ST/ESA/SER.A/236 Department of Economic and Social Affairs Population Division WORLD POPULATION TO 2300 United Nations

UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre Report Card 9 The children left behind A league table of inequality in child well-being in the world s rich countries Innocenti Report Card 9 was written by Peter Adamson.

Financing the Future of Energy The opportunity for the Gulf s financial services sector A report for the National Bank of Abu Dhabi by the University of Cambridge and PwC March 2015 Produced for What is

Renewable Energy Technology Roadmap 20% by 2020 Introduction Introduction In March 2007, the Heads of States and Governments of the 27 EU Member States adopted a binding target of 20 % renewable energy

IAEA SAFETY RELATED PUBLICATIONS IAEA SAFETY STANDARDS Under the terms of Article III of its Statute, the IAEA is authorized to establish or adopt standards of safety for protection of health and minimization